ReviewJournal of hip preservation surgery2026
The statistical fragility of randomized controlled trials comparing hip arthroscopy to conservative management for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome.
Review in Journal of hip preservation surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The fragility index (FI) assesses the robustness or fragility of statistically significant results in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but is limited to dichotomous outcomes. The continuous FI (CFI) extends this concept to continuous outcomes. This is particularly relevant when comparing hip arthroscopy (HA) and conservative management or physical therapy (PT) for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS), which commonly demonstrates significantly higher improvement in patient-reported outcomes among surgical intervention arms in comparison to conservative management. The study aimed to identify RCTs comparing outcomes after HA or conservative management for FAIS and characterize the fragility of statistically significant results. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov were utilized for RCT search. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials was used to assess the risk of bias. RCTs were included if (1) they contained a HA and conservative management or PT arm, and (2) reported ≥ one statistically significant outcome. CFI and FI were calculated for significant continuous and categorical outcomes, respectively. Five RCTs met inclusion criteria. Risk of bias was 'low' in 2 RCTs and 'some concerns' in 3 RCTs. The mean CFI was 15.84 (range, 8.8-28.4). The mean dichotomous FI was 3.5 (range, 1-6). Loss to follow-up exceeded calculated CFI or FI in 2 of the 5 RCTs. These findings may provide surgeons with greater confidence that HA can have superior clinical outcomes compared to PT, particularly when considering HA as a treatment option following unsuccessful conservative management. Meta-Analysis; Level of Evidence, 2.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.